Virtual Cache Expectations

[+ATXTracker]

When I heard (or misunderstood) that Virtual caches were coming back in the form of challenges, this is what I envisioned. A cache-less location with a more automated system for questions and answers which could either be automatically validate or optionally validated by the cache owner. A Picture is worth a thousand words ...

 

[+St.Matthew]

Have you seen the preview for the Discover Challenges yet?

[+ATXTracker]

No. Got a link?

 

Found a youtube video. Sounds like the same thing, just a challenge not a cache.

Edited May 31, 2012 by ATXTracker

[AZcachemeister]

Considering that no new virtuals are allowed, it's surprising to see that option listed on the Beta cache submission form.

 

I think someone 'messed up' when they designed the form.

 

Or maybe there is something in the works that we don't know about yet...but I doubt it.

[+JPatton]

Considering that no new virtuals are allowed, it's surprising to see that option listed on the Beta cache submission form.

 

Isn't Photoshop wonderful?

[+SwineFlew]

Considering that no new virtuals are allowed, it's surprising to see that option listed on the Beta cache submission form.

 

Isn't Photoshop wonderful?

This!!!

[+Glenn]

When I heard (or misunderstood) that Virtual caches were coming back in the form of challenges, this is what I envisioned. A cache-less location with a more automated system for questions and answers which could either be automatically validate or optionally validated by the cache owner. A Picture is worth a thousand words ...

 

I'm still trying to figure out how challenges are a replacement for virtual caches too. All the ones I've seen look like locationless caches to me. Find a footbridge, anchor, mailbox, haunted location, etc. A virtual cache brings you to a specific location.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

When I heard (or misunderstood) that Virtual caches were coming back in the form of challenges, this is what I envisioned. A cache-less location with a more automated system for questions and answers which could either be automatically validate or optionally validated by the cache owner. A Picture is worth a thousand words ...

 

I'm still trying to figure out how challenges are a replacement for virtual caches too. All the ones I've seen look like locationless caches to me. Find a footbridge, anchor, mailbox, haunted location, etc. A virtual cache brings you to a specific location.

 

The Challenges which look like locationless caches *should* all be worldwide challenges and can only be created by Groundspeak. All user created challenges should be at a specific location, and if they're not they can be flagged as "prohibited" and would be archived.

[cezanne]

Found a youtube video. Sounds like the same thing, just a challenge not a cache.

 

Not exactly the same type of thing as the discover challenges in the way as I understand the video and what I read about the plans also

seem to relate to a single location with provided coordinates. This excludes multi and mystery elements.

Also the no-ownership concept of challenges does not allow for more complex questions and a dialogue between the cache owner and the cache seekers

as it is common with Earthcaches. That's what I would like to have.

 

 

Cezanne

[AZcachemeister]

Considering that no new virtuals are allowed, it's surprising to see that option listed on the Beta cache submission form.

 

Isn't Photoshop wonderful?

This!!!

 

GOT ME!!

[cezanne]

When I heard (or misunderstood) that Virtual caches were coming back in the form of challenges, this is what I envisioned. A cache-less location with a more automated system for questions and answers which could either be automatically validate or optionally validated by the cache owner.

 

Actually, my own vision is broader and not specific to one location.

 

For example, I'd like to do something like this

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

or

this

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=dc8e2869-d48d-4aa9-b608-b1794c9e405c

with the container at the end replaced by a validation process (note the multi stage and puzzle elements).

 

The single location concept can reasonably well be implemented on Waymarking anyway. What I have in mind, however, does not fit in.

 

I'd also like to be able to connect a virtual caches to another virtual or a physical cache like I have done in my own only virtual

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=a7f277de-e3bd-4550-99cb-b07e5baad7f6

 

 

To summarize, my expectations for a virtual cache are the same as for physical caches except that there is no container in the end.

It seems to me that both Waymarking and challenges do not have the primary goal to implement containerless geocaches in their full flexibility.

 

Cezanne

[+Hollysdaddy]

PLEASE!!! GET RID of these "CHALLANGE" Caches. (And I use that term loosely)

Go nback to Virtual's!!!!!!! ASAP!!!!!

[+briansnat]

When I heard (or misunderstood) that Virtual caches were coming back in the form of challenges, this is what I envisioned. A cache-less location with a more automated system for questions and answers which could either be automatically validate or optionally validated by the cache owner. A Picture is worth a thousand words ...

 

I'm still trying to figure out how challenges are a replacement for virtual caches too. All the ones I've seen look like locationless caches to me. Find a footbridge, anchor, mailbox, haunted location, etc. A virtual cache brings you to a specific location.

 

The Challenges which look like locationless caches *should* all be worldwide challenges and can only be created by Groundspeak. All user created challenges should be at a specific location, and if they're not they can be flagged as "prohibited" and would be archived.

 

True, the challenges created by the user community must have a location. Only worldwide challenges are similar to locationless caches. Unfortunately in practice people are treating some of user created challenges like locationless. I saw one where you are supposed to go to a specific location and submit a photo of youself next to a specific object. It has been logged numerous times by people throughout the world with photos of them standing next to a similar object. Last time I looked at that challenge there were close to 100 logs and only one or two were legit. Unfortunately the submitter of the challenge can't delete illegitimate logs so as much as I like the idea behind challenges as a potential replacement of virtuals, without ability to police logs the concept has the potential to become a farce (as in the case of the challenge I described above).

Edited July 20, 2012 by briansnat

[+BAMBOOZLE]

PLEASE!!! GET RID of these "CHALLANGE" Caches. (And I use that term loosely)

Go nback to Virtual's!!!!!!! ASAP!!!!!

 

+1

[+briansnat]

No. Got a link?

 

Found a youtube video. Sounds like the same thing, just a challenge not a cache.

 

A virtual isn't a cache either.

[+hzoi]

When I heard (or misunderstood) that Virtual caches were coming back in the form of challenges, this is what I envisioned.

 

ATXTracker! You're out of your coma! God be praised! Man, we were starting to wonder if you'd ever wake up.

 

I know you're a little behind the times, since you've been unconscious and all, so if you want to get caught up on the whole virtual/challenge drama from the past year or so, there's plenty of old threads here on the forum you can search for.

 

Again, glad to have you back with us!

 

[AZcachemeister]

...the concept has the potential to become a farce...

 

As compared to what I was hoping we would get, and what I saw when these were implemented, they have achieved that potential. (And did it within hours of implementation. Kiss a frog? Really??)

 

I suppose there are plenty of geocaches that could be considered farcical, as well as waymarks that would certainly fit that description.

 

I guess that is just what you get when you rely on the general population to provide the input, and robust filtering is an expected requirement.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

...the concept has the potential to become a farce...

 

As compared to what I was hoping we would get, and what I saw when these were implemented, they have achieved that potential. (And did it within hours of implementation. Kiss a frog? Really??)

 

 

I've never understood the angst over the Kiss A Frog challenge. So, it was silly, so what? I know geocaching is serious business and all, but it is ok to have fun every once in awhile, right?

 

I've also thought it was too convenient that those who hate challenges will always prop the Kiss A Frog one up as an example of what is "bad" about them but never mention the 10,000 Fewer Pieces of Litter challenge, which is what can be great about them.

[+niraD]

I've never understood the angst over the Kiss A Frog challenge. So, it was silly, so what? I know geocaching is serious business and all, but it is ok to have fun every once in awhile, right?

Actually, the Kiss a Frog challenge was one that I was considering doing. Of course, I was going to use a rather different kind of frog for my photo ("A device on intersecting railroad tracks that permits wheels to cross the junction."), but that's part of the fun of challenges like that.

[+briansnat]

I've never understood the angst over the Kiss A Frog challenge. So, it was silly, so what? I know geocaching is serious business and all, but it is ok to have fun every once in awhile, right?

Actually, the Kiss a Frog challenge was one that I was considering doing. Of course, I was going to use a rather different kind of frog for my photo ("A device on intersecting railroad tracks that permits wheels to cross the junction."), but that's part of the fun of challenges like that.

 

I think Kiss a Frog was unfortunate. A big reason challenges haven't caught on is no smiley. The day they were introduced people all over the world logged on to see what challenges were about and because there were no local challenges yet, Kiss a Frog is what they saw. The reaction was "what does this have to do with geocaching?" and "These are nothing like virtuals".

 

That created a firestorm of people complaining and many outright demanding that smileys be removed from challenges because "challenges aren't geocaches" and they "cheapened the definition of finds". Nevermind that most of the same people who complained that challenges weren't geocaches so completing one shouldn't earn a smiley had logged virtuals, events, CITOs, GPS mazes, lost and founds, earthcaches, etc., which aren't geocaches either. A portion of the complainers had even logged locationless caches and had no qualms about getting a smiley for having their picture taken in front of a speed limit sign or birdhouse, or in the case of some, solving a riddle while sitting on their couch.

 

Anyway, thanks to the anti smiley clamor from a small, but vociferous group, Groundspeak acquiesced and smileys were removed, which basically consigned challenges to the scrap heap of geocaching history. That's too bad because I thought that with a little tweaking, they had the potential to be a viable substitute for virtuals and eventually something far better.

Edited July 21, 2012 by briansnat

[cezanne]

That's too bad because I thought that with a little tweaking, they had the potential to be a viable substitute for virtuals and eventually something far better.

 

I could not agree less. I think that the no-ownership concept (no editing of descriptions, very restricted length, no control over logs) is what is the key aspect that will never allow for a viable substitute. Personally, for me a further important aspect is the lacking flexibility of challenges (no multi and mystery aspects implementable, only photo verification). Puzzle elements do not work without controls over the logs - one needs to be able to delete spoiler logs quickly. Having negative evaluations on them does not help at all.

 

There are challenges around me and the reason why I do not visit them is not that they do not provide me with smileys, but rather than taking photos at locations known to me for almost my whole life is very boring for me - it is as boring as it would be for me to scan munzees.

 

In fact, from my point of view challenges are worse than waymarks in any almost aspect I can think and already waymarks are not a sustitute for virtuals.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 21, 2012 by cezanne

[cezanne]

 

I've never understood the angst over the Kiss A Frog challenge. So, it was silly, so what? I know geocaching is serious business and all, but it is ok to have fun every once in awhile, right?

 

I've also thought it was too convenient that those who hate challenges will always prop the Kiss A Frog one up as an example of what is "bad" about them but never mention the 10,000 Fewer Pieces of Litter challenge, which is what can be great about them.

 

Actually, I do not think that the main argument against the Kiss A Frog challenge is not its sillyness, but the fact that one did not need to leave one's house to complete it and that does not fit an outdoor activity.

 

Cezanne

[+St.Matthew]

 

I've never understood the angst over the Kiss A Frog challenge. So, it was silly, so what? I know geocaching is serious business and all, but it is ok to have fun every once in awhile, right?

 

I've also thought it was too convenient that those who hate challenges will always prop the Kiss A Frog one up as an example of what is "bad" about them but never mention the 10,000 Fewer Pieces of Litter challenge, which is what can be great about them.

 

Actually, I do not think that the main argument against the Kiss A Frog challenge is not its sillyness, but the fact that one did not need to leave one's house to complete it and that does not fit an outdoor activity.

 

+1

[Mr.Yuck]

...the concept has the potential to become a farce...

 

As compared to what I was hoping we would get, and what I saw when these were implemented, they have achieved that potential. (And did it within hours of implementation. Kiss a frog? Really??)

 

 

I've never understood the angst over the Kiss A Frog challenge. So, it was silly, so what? I know geocaching is serious business and all, but it is ok to have fun every once in awhile, right?

 

I've also thought it was too convenient that those who hate challenges will always prop the Kiss A Frog one up as an example of what is "bad" about them but never mention the 10,000 Fewer Pieces of Litter challenge, which is what can be great about them.

 

How soon we all forget. I think it is long forgotten that Challenges were going to be counted as finds in our find count. For like 2 days, and then they changed their minds after massive world-wide angst. So yeah, angst over kiss a frog counting as a find? I can see it.

 

And during the week of massive world-wide angst, I tweeted to Twitter that 85% of Geocaching.com accounts were created after Jan. 2nd 2006, the day all locationless caches were archived and locked forever (and no new ones had been accepted since 2003). No one would have even blinked an eye if Kiss a Frog was a locationless cache.

 

Edit to say 85%, not 95%. I could have just used niraD's account number from this thread, seeing as he joined that month. Yep, he's one of the 85% of registered accounts that never even had a chance to find a locationless cache, if they so choose. Well, except for the few thousand people who figured out you could do it on the Iphone App when it was new. OK, I'm babbling, bye.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+briansnat]

That's too bad because I thought that with a little tweaking, they had the potential to be a viable substitute for virtuals and eventually something far better.

 

I could not agree less. I think that the no-ownership concept (no editing of descriptions, very restricted length, no control over logs) is what is the key aspect that will never allow for a viable substitute. Personally, for me a further important aspect is the lacking flexibility of challenges (no multi and mystery aspects implementable, only photo verification). Puzzle elements do not work without controls over the logs - one needs to be able to delete spoiler logs quickly. Having negative evaluations on them does not help at all.

 

There are challenges around me and the reason why I do not visit them is not that they do not provide me with smileys, but rather than taking photos at locations known to me for almost my whole life is very boring for me - it is as boring as it would be for me to scan munzees.

 

In fact, from my point of view challenges are worse than waymarks in any almost aspect I can think and already waymarks are not a sustitute for virtuals.

 

Cezanne

 

As I said, with tweaking it could have been a viable alternative. Tweaking would include things like owner control over logs and the listing. As far as the lack of a mystery or multi aspects, I don't recall many virtuals that had that. And I'm not getting your objection to snapping photos, as that is exactly what many virtuals require.

[cezanne]

 

As I said, with tweaking it could have been a viable alternative. Tweaking would include things like owner control over logs and the listing.

 

This rather would be a change of the concept and not just tweaking.

 

Moreover, Jeremy made it quite clear that challenges are rather thought as a new game and not an adequate substitute for virtuals.

 

As far as the lack of a mystery or multi aspects, I don't recall many virtuals that had that.

 

Because most existing virtuals have been published in countries where mystery and multi aspects do play a comparatively small role. In 2003 it has already been quite hard to get through a virtual which I do know from my own experience. If virtuals had existed longer, there would be much more of such virtuals.

 

And I'm not getting your objection to snapping photos, as that is exactly what many virtuals require.

 

Yes, many, but not those I do appreciate and not a single one of the few that existed in Austria. Virtuals allowed a great deal of flexibility - the creator had many options and was not fixed to what others came up with (as in waymarks) or even worse to a single verification method (as with challenges).

 

 

From my point of view, challenges and waymarks easily replace a certain type of virtual, but somehow that type of virtual which I do not find interesting. So I do not believe that challenges had the potential to become a real substitute for virtuals or better than virtuals.

 

Right now I again have an idea that I'd like to implement in a virtual manner and which cannot be implemented as challenge or waymark.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 21, 2012 by cezanne

[+Roman!]

I did the kiss a frog challenge in my bathroom and deleted it when I found it gave me a smilie. The reason I started Geocaching in the first place was to have a reason to get out of the bathroom.

[+tozainamboku]

I've never understood the angst over the Kiss A Frog challenge. So, it was silly, so what? I know geocaching is serious business and all, but it is ok to have fun every once in awhile, right?

Actually, the Kiss a Frog challenge was one that I was considering doing. Of course, I was going to use a rather different kind of frog for my photo ("A device on intersecting railroad tracks that permits wheels to cross the junction."), but that's part of the fun of challenges like that.

 

I think Kiss a Frog was unfortunate. A big reason challenges haven't caught on is no smiley. The day they were introduced people all over the world logged on to see what challenges were about and because there were no local challenges yet, Kiss a Frog is what they saw. The reaction was "what does this have to do with geocaching?" and "These are nothing like virtuals".

 

I don't which is worse. The lack of vision or imagination as to how to use the features given to you to accomplish what you want to do, or the people that have the creativity to use these features in ways that Groundspeak didn't imagine.

 

When Waymarking started people saw the McDonalds category and immediately decided that this wasn't virtual caches. Granted that in the beginning, if you had a place that would make a "good" virtual cache, you may have had trouble finding a category for it (or in some rare instances you didn't want to use any of the categories that were available because that gave away too much). Granted that waymarks got visited rarely compared to geocaches, in part because it was new and in part because of the lack of a way to download coordinates and descriptions. Granted that it lacked some features that would make it easier to create multi part virtuals, perhaps with some mystery or puzzle components (but then these features didn't always exist on Geocaching.com and people were able to figure out ways to hide these kinds of virtuals before the features existed).

 

Instead of imagining ways to make Waymarking more amenable to the kinds of virtual caches they liked, people abandoned the site to the catalogers who saw Waymarking as a way to build lists of locations in different categories (something more akin to Locationless caches).

 

So too have people abandoned challenges to the silly and trivial because they see challenges that seem to have nothing to do with the kinds of places they wanted to list as a virtual cache. The see mostly the worldwide challenges, which are intentionally of the locationless cache variety, and may not see any local challenge that brings them to a really cool place. Or they may see that the kinds of challenge activities don't fit with what they want to have a person do there (perhaps Discover challenges will address this). Perhaps the issue is ownership of the challenge listing. Some people feel the need to protect the integrity of their virtual by ensure that people don't claim credit it they didn't actually visit. They see what seem to be logs where the person didn't really visit the location or when the person may have visited but didn't do the challenge. Of course, others may feel that there is no need to make it a contests to see who completes the most challenges so there is no reason to cheat and those who don't visit or don't do the challenges have only cheated themselves out of some of the fun.

 

Of course any replacement for virtual caches will still not be a virtual cache. For many, the attraction was that a virtual cache find counted the same as a physical find. For others, it was an opportunity to hide a cache at a location where physical hide couldn't be hidden. Still others may like the fact that reviewers were the gatekeepers of "Wow" so that most virtual caches brought you to truly interesting places. So far the mechanism for challenges and for most Waymarking categories fall short of the review process for weeding out supposedly lame locations. What most people don't see is that it was the creative interpretation of the guidelines by individuals as to what made a virtual cache that broke the system. Prior to the Wow requirement, people were listing virtuals just as silly as any waymark or challenge you can find. Many were listed with the clear intention that you weren't going to visit the location - they were meant for couch potato logging. Attempts were made with the "wow" requirement and clarification that you needed to visit, but that did not stop people from trying to list these. The cost in maintaining such a system became too high when the volunteer reviewers no longer wanted to be arbiters of "wowness". Waymarking and Challenges look for different ways to control quality. If these ways are not working, perhaps this is where the tweaking in needed. What won't happen is a return to the old virtual caches mechanism.

[Mr.Yuck]

I did the kiss a frog challenge in my bathroom and deleted it when I found it gave me a smilie. The reason I started Geocaching in the first place was to have a reason to get out of the bathroom.

 

Tell that to my 17 yr. old (18 next month) daughter who like "hangs out" in the bathroom. She's rocking the IPOD speakers, she's taking the Cats in there. It's a whole party going on.

[+fizzymagic]

I don't which is worse. The lack of vision or imagination as to how to use the features given to you to accomplish what you want to do, or the people that have the creativity to use these features in ways that Groundspeak didn't imagine.

 

So you think that as customers it is our responsibility to figure out how to enjoy whatever Groundspeak deigns to give us, not theirs to make a product that we, the customers, like?

 

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't which is worse. The lack of vision or imagination as to how to use the features given to you to accomplish what you want to do, or the people that have the creativity to use these features in ways that Groundspeak didn't imagine.

 

So you think that as customers it is our responsibility to figure out how to enjoy whatever Groundspeak deigns to give us, not theirs to make a product that we, the customers, like?

Geocachers are a very creative group and have figured out in the past how to accomplish many things within the structure of the Geoaching.com website. I suspect that virtuals, multis, and puzzles all came about as people figured out you could list these on the site back when the only type of geocache was "geocache". Once these proved popular, TPTB added cache types to support them. Then people tried making virtual caches that you could find anywhere; the concept of locationless came out of that.

 

I'm sure that other changes were driven by user innovation - like micro size, D/T rating, travel bugs, attributes, and challenge caches.

 

Groundspeak has made decision to stop publishing virtual caches as caches on Geocaching.com. (My guess is that they would prefer to stop publishing EarthCaches here as well but there is a another party involved, so the decision is not Groundspeak's alone). However they have stated over and over that the concept of listing locations of interesting preexisting things to discover is something they realize is of interest to many geocachers and something that people will do along with searching for physical caches. They have provided at least a couple of alternatives to accomplish this.

 

It is certainly the case that none of these is exactly what we had before. There are some reasons why the alternatives have not become as popular as virtual caches were or are. However I believe if people tried to make these thing work they would have a great deal on influence on Groundspeak to make changes.

 

Clearly Jeremy (or Dave Ulmer for that matter) is not Steve Jobs. They didn't invent geocaching as it ultimately developed, providing a product that everyone wants but nobody knew they needed. Instead geocaching has developed over the years based on input from many people. Certainly, some may feel that the old virtual caches were working just fine (or only needed a little tweaking). They may feel their voices are not heard by TPTB. However in this case it is their responsibility to explain to Groundspeak not only why the alternatives don't work but how they propose to bring back virtuals without the problems of the past. If I were Jeremy, I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who tried to make Waymarking and challenges work than to someone who dismissed them after only a cursory look.

[+briansnat]

I don't which is worse. The lack of vision or imagination as to how to use the features given to you to accomplish what you want to do, or the people that have the creativity to use these features in ways that Groundspeak didn't imagine.

 

So you think that as customers it is our responsibility to figure out how to enjoy whatever Groundspeak deigns to give us, not theirs to make a product that we, the customers, like?

 

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

 

They gave us geocaches and we liked them. They gave us virtuals and apparently a segment of geocachers REALLY liked them.

[+briansnat]

For those who clamor for the return of virtuals, which version to they want to see returned? The sort where you can create virtuals out of anything imaginable, manhole covers, flag poles, rocks, piles of horse dung,etc., or what we had for most of their existence, the "wow factor"?

[+captnemo]

For those who clamor for the return of virtuals, which version to they want to see returned? The sort where you can create virtuals out of anything imaginable, manhole covers, flag poles, rocks, piles of horse dung,etc., or what we had for most of their existence, the "wow factor"?

No question for me, the "wow factor" a lame cache is a lame cache no matter what form it takes. The challenges we got aren't caches and not worth the time to look for them. IMHO

[+The A-Team]

For those who clamor for the return of virtuals, which version to they want to see returned? The sort where you can create virtuals out of anything imaginable, manhole covers, flag poles, rocks, piles of horse dung,etc., or what we had for most of their existence, the "wow factor"?

No question for me, the "wow factor" a lame cache is a lame cache no matter what form it takes. The challenges we got aren't caches and not worth the time to look for them. IMHO

I'd wager everything I own that the reviewers wouldn't vote that way. I have a sense of how much grief they get with the way things are now, so I shudder to think how bad it would be in a new WOW age. This has been rehashed many times already, but the WOW factor is just too subjective to be a viable option.

 

Would I love to see virtuals come back? Sure. Can I think of any possible way it could work? No, and I have yet to see anyone else come up with a viable proposal. That's not to say it can't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

[+fizzymagic]

For those who clamor for the return of virtuals, which version to they want to see returned?

 

Please note, Brian, that there is a world of difference between wanting virtuals back and observing that both Challenges and Waymarks suck.

 

It is quite obvious to me that the primary design consideration for both Waymarks and Challenges was the minimization of work required for Groundspeak and its volunteers. It's been my experience that when a company produces a product designed mainly for its own convenience, and not for the real needs of the customers, that product tends to suck.

 

The list of examples is too long to recite here, but consider:

* Sony MiniDisc

* Microsoft Bob

* DRM on music and movies

* New Coke

 

Both Waymarks and Challenges belong on this list. That in no way is meant to imply that Groundspeak is not a great company -- they are wonderful! But having a successful product like geocaching is probably more the exception than the rule for most companies. I hope they keep trying; eventually they will get it right.

[+briansnat]

For those who clamor for the return of virtuals, which version to they want to see returned? The sort where you can create virtuals out of anything imaginable, manhole covers, flag poles, rocks, piles of horse dung,etc., or what we had for most of their existence, the "wow factor"?

No question for me, the "wow factor" a lame cache is a lame cache no matter what form it takes. The challenges we got aren't caches and not worth the time to look for them. IMHO

 

You realize then that even if they come back, they won't be back. It was nearly impossible to get a virtual published in the several years the "wow factor" was in place. I don't have the actual numbers but I'd be surprised if it reached three digits. The ban on virtuals effectively began when the wow factor was introduced

Edited July 22, 2012 by briansnat

[+Isonzo Karst]

For those who clamor for the return of virtuals, which version to they want to see returned?

 

Please note, Brian, that there is a world of difference between wanting virtuals back and observing that both Challenges and Waymarks suck.

 

It is quite obvious to me that the primary design consideration for both Waymarks and Challenges was the minimization of work required for Groundspeak and its volunteers. ....

 

That in no way is meant to imply that Groundspeak is not a great company -- they are wonderful! But having a successful product like geocaching is probably more the exception than the rule for most companies. I hope they keep trying; eventually they will get it right.

 

I agree with your assessment re "minimization of work", and I also think that the value of Virts was a direct consequence of how much work they were for staff and volunteers.

 

A suggestion for bringing back Virtuals: on the CSP, ahve the Virtual option. HOWEVER > when that choice is make - the hider has to PAY FOR IT. How much? I'm not sure, Groundspeak would need to think on that one (I'm thinking about $15 - $20). A non-refundable fee, that's the price of the review. If the virtual is rejected (and I suspect most would be) you're out the money.

 

The hider would be linked to the Virtual guidelines, which could be extensive, and strongly encouraged to NOT hide a Virt.

 

Once they paid, they'd have the icon on the listing, which would go to the location queue. There the local reviewer would weigh in on whether the area would support a physical cache. They'd add any other relevant local knowledge and then send it on to staff. Virts would have staff Virt reviewers. Their job would be to weigh in on "wowness".

 

I bet this would work.

I bet this never happens ;-)

[cezanne]

The hider would be linked to the Virtual guidelines, which could be extensive, and strongly encouraged to NOT hide a Virt.

 

Once they paid, they'd have the icon on the listing, which would go to the location queue. There the local reviewer would weigh in on whether the area would support a physical cache. They'd add any other relevant local knowledge and then send it on to staff. Virts would have staff Virt reviewers. Their job would be to weigh in on "wowness".

 

I bet this would work.

I bet this never happens ;-)

 

I also do not think that this is going to happen, but I do not think that such a concept would produce something I'd enjoy.

Moreover, I certainly would not be willing to actively take part in such an activity.

 

It is my work and energy that I want to invest, not money and I do not care whether the area would support a physical cache there, but whether I want to place one there. There are hardly locations that cannot support these annoying nanos with liberally executed guidelines as in my country where one can hide a cache almost everywhere - on playgrounds, church walls, crosses, graves, a few meters from a school etc (note that this is not a complaint, just a fact), far from paths in environmentally sensitive areas etc.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

For those who clamor for the return of virtuals, which version to they want to see returned?

 

I guess there are many cachers who just want to have an adequate substitute for virtuals. I'm fully aware of the fact that virtuals will not work today in the way they worked back then (and even then a lot of issues arose).

 

To some extent I agree with fizzymagic's claim of that the minimization of the work for Groundspeak and the reviewers played a major role in the development of Waymarking and challenges, but I think that challenges caused more work than a cache-like implementation would have caused. I still believe that challenges have been set up to appeal to a different audience. The target audience seems to be people who end up with some unexpected spare time and want to find something to escape from boredom and have a look at their smartphones, start the challenge app and see what kind of quick fun activity might be available nearby.

 

Even if discovery challenges ever become available, they will never be suitable to implement Earthcache like educational concepts, and the early replies from Groundspeak to user feedback after the launch of the challenges clearly demonstrate that Groundspeak is not willing to change their challenge concept fundamentally. It is pretty much clear that they wanted to come up with something they regarded as cool and hoped that would attract a new audience.

 

Cezanne

[+briansnat]

..To some extent I agree with fizzymagic's claim of that the minimization of the work for Groundspeak and the reviewers played a major role in the development of Waymarking and challenges, but I think that challenges caused more work than a cache-like implementation would have caused...

 

It wasn't so much minimization of work. It's of little consequence to a reviewer if the cache submission has a ghost icon or a traditional. He still has to verify that it complies with the guidelines. Heck, if they really wanted to minimize work they'd eliminate multis.

 

It was more to minimize the grief that was being heaped on the reviwers by the community for simply doing their job.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

For those who clamor for the return of virtuals, which version to they want to see returned? The sort where you can create virtuals out of anything imaginable, manhole covers, flag poles, rocks, piles of horse dung,etc., or what we had for most of their existence, the "wow factor"?

 

"IF" we could have virtuals back in the original form, including anything - they now have the form of voting set up by using 'favorites' and they could just 'tweak' that by including the option to vote the cache low - so low it would be automatically archived. This would alleviate the problem caches without any intervention of humans having to tell the people who thought up the manhole covers, piles of horse dung, that they have a sucky cache. It just would disappear.

 

People loved the ghosts on their finds and loved either the history or very interesting places and yes, even the tricky questions that could come with the virtuals. You could set them up with a complimentary multi-choice questions that could have the answer be OK'd by one click without going through an email and wait to log thingy.

 

We could become the ultra new 'teckie' smart - automated - virtual site, with the ability to have our friendly ghost icons for finds back once more.

 

Nice and easy - yes?

 

Shirley~

[+Isonzo Karst]

'tweak' that by including the option to vote the cache low - so low it would be automatically archived. This would alleviate the problem caches without any intervention of humans having to tell the people who thought up the manhole covers, piles of horse dung, that they have a sucky cache. It just would disappear.

 

Pointless easy virts would thrive, they'd not be voted off the island. The Catch-22 on a voting system is that easy virts will attract the people who like easy smileys. The people who don't like 'em, won't do 'em - and then they don't have a vote. People will like the ones with "wow" better then those without, but they'll still be happy enough about the smiley.

 

My reviewer account has dealt with NA logs on Virtuals on a few occasions. A virtual cache on a piece of statuary that had been removed when a shopping center was built; coords were now in the median at a shopping center entry. This was the situation for THREE YEARS before some one logged a NA. Everyone else (a lot of people) took the smiley for visiting the coords where there used to be something =;-) I think that's pretty much the definition of sucky.

 

Aside from that, if you're going to allow low votes, why stop at virts? why not do it for all caches?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

'tweak' that by including the option to vote the cache low - so low it would be automatically archived. This would alleviate the problem caches without any intervention of humans having to tell the people who thought up the manhole covers, piles of horse dung, that they have a sucky cache. It just would disappear.

 

Pointless easy virts would thrive, they'd not be voted off the island. The Catch-22 on a voting system is that easy virts will attract the people who like easy smileys. The people who don't like 'em, won't do 'em - and then they don't have a vote. People will like the ones with "wow" better then those without, but they'll still be happy enough about the smiley.

 

My reviewer account has dealt with NA logs on Virtuals on a few occasions. A virtual cache on a piece of statuary that had been removed when a shopping center was built; coords were now in the median at a shopping center entry. This was the situation for THREE YEARS before some one logged a NA. Everyone else (a lot of people) took the smiley for visiting the coords where there used to be something =;-) I think that's pretty much the definition of sucky.

 

Aside from that, if you're going to allow low votes, why stop at virts? why not do it for all caches?

OK, I would be willing for that also. Lets vote on all caches. I would like to see some of those that are placed in tacky/bad areas gone. But, just because it is a bad area is no reason to post a NA or NM...but people might vote it low enough to be gone.

 

But, we were talking the possibility for virtuals to be able to make a comeback. So I suggested the voting down instead, due to the overload on the volunteer reviewers with having the WOW factor, that was the cause for stopping virtual cache in the first place. Do away with the WOW factor, no hassle for the reviewers, no need to say that virtuals wouldn't work by using this simple method. Yes?

 

Shirley~

[+Vater_Araignee]

PLEASE!!! GET RID of these "CHALLANGE" Caches. (And I use that term loosely)

Go nback to Virtual's!!!!!!! ASAP!!!!!

With their own count like benchmarks and a global setting to hide them.

Then people who honestly like will have them.

Numbers purists wont bunch their boxers.

The individual who thinks that the phrase Virtual Cache is an oxymoron can keep them from cluttering lists and maps permanently.

 

For those of you who only want them back for quick found it increments, I'm sorry I cant figure out a way to appease you also, but then again your numbers are supposedly so insignificantly small compared to the others as not to matter.

[+Isonzo Karst]

So I suggested the voting down instead, due to the overload on the volunteer reviewers with having the WOW factor, that was the cause for stopping virtual cache in the first place. Do away with the WOW factor, no hassle for the reviewers, no need to say that virtuals wouldn't work by using this simple method. Yes?

 

I do "say that virtuals wouldn't work by using this simple method." ;-) Virts would totally dominate the game in very short order. Easy to place, easy to find, and practically immortal. Not yes, but no!

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

So I suggested the voting down instead, due to the overload on the volunteer reviewers with having the WOW factor, that was the cause for stopping virtual cache in the first place. Do away with the WOW factor, no hassle for the reviewers, no need to say that virtuals wouldn't work by using this simple method. Yes?

 

I do "say that virtuals wouldn't work by using this simple method." ;-) Virts would totally dominate the game in very short order. Easy to place, easy to find, and practically immortal. Not yes, but no!

What is soooo wrong about "easy to find, and practically immortal"? Not NO, but YES!

 

Shirley~

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

So I suggested the voting down instead, due to the overload on the volunteer reviewers with having the WOW factor, that was the cause for stopping virtual cache in the first place. Do away with the WOW factor, no hassle for the reviewers, no need to say that virtuals wouldn't work by using this simple method. Yes?

 

I do "say that virtuals wouldn't work by using this simple method." ;-) Virts would totally dominate the game in very short order. Easy to place, easy to find, and practically immortal. Not yes, but no!

 

John (my hubby) just saw what I was posting and says, The "Virts would totally dominate the game in very short order" is just like the Micros Have totally dominated the game in very short order! When people log our cache and tell us that they finally found a regular size cache, it lets you know how bad it has gotten with micros.

 

We have pretty much quit caching due to all of the micros and small caches (that are really micros).

 

Shirley~

[cezanne]

John (my hubby) just saw what I was posting and says, The "Virts would totally dominate the game in very short order" is just like the Micros Have totally dominated the game in very short order!

 

Do not integrate them into the find count for physical caches and I'm quite sure that they will not dominate.

 

Cezanne

[+The A-Team]

What is soooo wrong about "easy to find, and practically immortal"? Not NO, but YES!

Don't forget "easy to hide". If there wasn't any restriction like the WOW factor, I would fully expect the maps to be cluttered with innumerable poor virtuals in very short order. Remember, the proximity guideline doesn't apply to virtuals. They could be placed anywhere, no matter how saturated an area may already be. As you mentioned, there are many people these days that are willing to put minimal effort, time, and expense into placing a micro. What if they then didn't need to put any effort/time/expense into placing caches? Do you really believe that people wouldn't jump all over a cache type with no restrictions?